Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Originally Posted by CVP33

300C SRT-8 = 369 rwhp. Don't you just hate it when people use facts. Damn it I do!

I'm not sure why the hell you decided to be an a$$, but whatever...

Ron doesn't have the before and after results of the SRT-8s that he dynoed posted on his website, but I will inquire as to when he will post them. Further, I don't know the name of the gentlemen I ran into at A&A, but he informed me of his SRT-8 that dynoed at exactly within the range that I quoted.

And clearly the dyno results you linked MUST, ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DISCUSSION be correct, yes? Clearly, any other dyno results must be bullsh*t...

I got news for you--your so-called facts AREN'T "facts." Dynoes vary all over the god-damn place.

And the loss% I quoted was obtained from the E55 AMG boards. Would you like me to post that link, as clearly I'm often full of sh*t, or do you trust my veracity?

You have every right to be proud of your new car. That does not, however, give you a license to be an anal cavity though.

One other thing as well...who on earth says that 400 (for the CTS-V) or 425 (for the SRT-8) *IS* accurate 100% of the time? Yeah, clearly automotive manufacturers ALWAYS tell the truth when it comes to a car's actual output, to say nothing of actually achieving that 100% of the time, with NO VARIATIONS...

Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Chris -

Play nice. If you're going to post a low V dyno, post a low SRT8 dyno to match. We all know they're a powerhouse (both cars) and that internet racing is a waste of time. How about we try the approach Luna is with the E55 AMG's - anyone with a stock SRT8 want to race a Stock V?

Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Originally Posted by wildwhl

Chris -

Play nice. If you're going to post a low V dyno, post a low SRT8 dyno to match. We all know they're a powerhouse (both cars) and that internet racing is a waste of time. How about we try the approach Luna is with the E55 AMG's - anyone with a stock SRT8 want to race a Stock V?

WW

For the record I made it clear that I will not allow anyone to post misinformation regarding either vehicle. I shoot down BS on the 300C forum as well re: the CTS-V. I just like to deal in facts. I took the first 3 dyno's that I could find from the 300C forum and the first 3 CTS-V dyno's that I could find here and on LS1tech. Luna's post was baseless. I decided to prove that to him. The interenet is full of "experts". I just post facts and use common math skills. That doesn't make me anal, it just makes me honest. Everyone is free to post the opposing argument.

Don't take it personal Luna. You were wrong. Plain and simple. Post facts to the contrary and discontinue the personal attacks. You're showing your a$$ and I'm showing dyno graphs. Get over it. Oh, wait, wait, wait, I just did get over it. It's the freakin' internet, lighten up.

Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Originally Posted by Luna.

FYI...

I've seen several dyno runs of SRT-8s and they were nowhere near 365-375 rwhp. The ones I saw were around 340-350.

Further, E55 transmissions are estimated to lose about 19%, which is more than what most consider reasonable for a CTS-V (~15%). This appears reasonable, as, unless my understanding is incorrect, a manual pretty much HAS to lose less than an automatic transmission with a torque converter.

Please post the dyno's you've seen. I'd like to see those too. A 15% loss for the CTS-V would have a rwhp of 340. I'm sure there are some, I just couldn't find any "stock" V's hitting those numbers. TXsilverV dyno'd a very disappointing 305 rwhp.

Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Originally Posted by Luna.

I'm not sure why the hell you decided to be an a$$, but whatever...

Ron doesn't have the before and after results of the SRT-8s that he dynoed posted on his website, but I will inquire as to when he will post them. Further, I don't know the name of the gentlemen I ran into at A&A, but he informed me of his SRT-8 that dynoed at exactly within the range that I quoted.

And clearly the dyno results you linked MUST, ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DISCUSSION be correct, yes? Clearly, any other dyno results must be bullsh*t...

I got news for you--your so-called facts AREN'T "facts." Dynoes vary all over the god-damn place.

And the loss% I quoted was obtained from the E55 AMG boards. Would you like me to post that link, as clearly I'm often full of sh*t, or do you trust my veracity?

You have every right to be proud of your new car. That does not, however, give you a license to be an anal cavity though.

One other thing as well...who on earth says that 400 (for the CTS-V) or 425 (for the SRT-8) *IS* accurate 100% of the time? Yeah, clearly automotive manufacturers ALWAYS tell the truth when it comes to a car's actual output, to say nothing of actually achieving that 100% of the time, with NO VARIATIONS...

Not pride. Pride cometh before the fall. Just posting facts. I'll be glad to review any that you choose to post. And by the way, "I heard" or "the guys on forum X said" or "a guy I know" is and are not facts. Post a dyno sheet. Post a link to a dyno sheet. Post something but please stop the personal attacks you're embarrassing yourself.

Re: Damn those SRT8's are quick!

Originally Posted by CVP33

For the record I made it clear that I will not allow anyone to post misinformation regarding either vehicle. I shoot down BS on the 300C forum as well re: the CTS-V. I just like to deal in facts. I took the first 3 dyno's that I could find from the 300C forum and the first 3 CTS-V dyno's that I could find here and on LS1tech. Luna's post was baseless. I decided to prove that to him. The interenet is full of "experts". I just post facts and use common math skills. That doesn't make me anal, it just makes me honest. Everyone is free to post the opposing argument.

Don't take it personal Luna. You were wrong. Plain and simple. Post facts to the contrary and discontinue the personal attacks. You're showing your a$$ and I'm showing dyno graphs. Get over it. Oh, wait, wait, wait, I just did get over it. It's the freakin' internet, lighten up.

Dude...there are so many things that need to be said, I'm not sure where to even start.

Firstly, who in the hell made you the grand-daddy of all SRT-8 and CTS-V information? Boy, I'm sure glad that we all elected you to the guardian of "misinformation regarding either vehicle." I guess I must have missed that election...why don't you find THAT link for me...

You should take your own advice that, "it's the freakin' internet, lighten up..."

Also, you proved NOTHING to me. Is that clear? I could care less what you found or what else is out there. I'm telling you what I saw with my own eyes. What, I'm wrong because what I viewed was incorrect? I have no idea if it was accurate or not--I just posted what I saw (& was told). Did you see me state that your numbers WERE INCORRECT?

As a matter of fact, let's review what I said:

Originally Posted by Luna.

FYI...

I've seen several dyno runs of SRT-8s and they were nowhere near 365-375 rwhp. The ones I saw were around 340-350.

Further, E55 transmissions are estimated to lose about 19%, which is more than what most consider reasonable for a CTS-V (~15%). This appears reasonable, as, unless my understanding is incorrect, a manual pretty much HAS to lose less than an automatic transmission with a torque converter.

Gee..there is a lot of misinformation in there, isn't there? Oh, unless, of course, you are going to tell me what I did and did not see. That I would very much like to understand.

WTF are you reading??? I sure as hell don't see anything in my comments that were even remotely egregious, to say nothing about spurring you to be a jerk or anything.

And, while we are on that topic, you were the disrespectful one first, not I. And I'm fairly certain that I'm not the only one that sees it that way either.